RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care

RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 4:03:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That is a fucking lie, I said no such thing. Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs. So, under single-payer health care systems, government takes the place of private insurers. Got it. HUGE difference from government being the insurers... [8\|] I think you're missing the label here Desi. Government funded healthcare does not take the place of private insurers. If you want to take out private insurance, you can, and it would be in addition to what the government's healthcare system provides. In many cases, that could get you a shorter waiting time for non-essential surgery and probably a private room; but not much else. You'll almost certainly be seen by the same NHS doctor/consultant and have the same theatre team in the OR and prep room. But here's where the two systems, NHS and private, are completely different in the same scenario.... If you went into hospital for whatever reason and whilst you were in the OR the surgical team found another, quite serious problem, or additional complication, here's what happens here under the two systems - Under a private insurance admission, if that additional problem was part of a pre-existing condition excluded by your private insurance cover, you'd come out of OR still with that problem even if your life was at risk from having it. Under the NHS or single-payer system, because the staff and the treatment are being paid for by taxes, they would also fix that pre-existing condition (assuming it was fixable). Now that's a huge difference in application of the same service by the same people in the same hospital but funded by two different systems of healthcare. Plus, of course, in a single-payer system, patients don't have to worry about rising premiums or affordability of healthcare in the first place because it's completely free at the point of delivery.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 4:04:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You are taking a look as a right coming from government. That would be an idiotic interpretation of his post. He does not say that at all. This is a construct in your own mind so that now you have a straw man to knock down.[8\|] "If there was not a set of laws to protect a right the right doesn't exist..." If there was not a right, there would be no set of laws to protect it. That's a look as the right being there without government. The mother fucking point is that if that right is not protected it does not ipso facto exist...no one but you is saying that the government gives anyone rights. You just said that without a law, a right doesn't exist. Laws require government, no? That is the same thing as saying that government gives you rights. And, that is not correct. quote: Since, without government, there is no protection from the stronger abusing the weaker any which way they want, we come together to form government. So the weak guy tells the strong guy who is abusing him that he is going to form a gang (govt.)to keep the strong guy from abusing him. Now the gang (govt) says no more abuse of the weak by the strong. Oh my fucking gawd such a grasp of reality is seldom seen these days.[8\|] Check the mirror. quote: There is no need for government if there are no rights to protect. Wrong again. It would appear that the govt seems to be the one who decides what are rights. The govt is us,therefore "we the people" determine what is a right and through our government "we the people" enforce and protect those rights. For somone to attempt a construct that claims he govt (here in the u.s.) is somehow different than "we the people" is fatuous and just another attempt to derail any discussion. And, once again, you have just stated that government is giving us our rights. And, that, once again, is wrong. Have you read the Declaration of Independence? quote: If you create government for the purpose of giving you rights, you aren't getting rights, but getting privileges of being within that government's reach. You are the only one making the assertion that the government gives rights. Why is that? Don't know why no one else is on here siding with me. Notice, too, how there aren't all that many siding with you? This is not a discussion within which a large group of people is participating. There are only a handful of people.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 4:10:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That is a fucking lie, I said no such thing. Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs. So, under single-payer health care systems, government takes the place of private insurers. Got it. HUGE difference from government being the insurers... [8\|] I think you're missing the label here Desi. Government funded healthcare does not take the place of private insurers. If you want to take out private insurance, you can, and it would be in addition to what the government's healthcare system provides. In many cases, that could get you a shorter waiting time for non-essential surgery and probably a private room; but not much else. You'll almost certainly be seen by the same NHS doctor/consultant and have the same theatre team in the OR and prep room. But here's where the two systems, NHS and private, are completely different in the same scenario.... If you went into hospital for whatever reason and whilst you were in the OR the surgical team found another, quite serious problem, or additional complication, here's what happens here under the two systems - Under a private insurance admission, if that additional problem was part of a pre-existing condition excluded by your private insurance cover, you'd come out of OR still with that problem even if your life was at risk from having it. Under the NHS or single-payer system, because the staff and the treatment are being paid for by taxes, they would also fix that pre-existing condition (assuming it was fixable). Now that's a huge difference in application of the same service by the same people in the same hospital but funded by two different systems of healthcare. Plus, of course, in a single-payer system, patients don't have to worry about rising premiums or affordability of healthcare in the first place because it's completely free at the point of delivery. I understand what you are saying, but that is not what MN is saying. In MN's system, there is no private insurance, as "government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs." In that situation, government certainly does take the place of private insurance.

Politesub53 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 4:32:37 PM)
No it doesnt..... Insurance companies are out to make a profit from health services. The government, at least our one, is not. All the NHS hope to do is break even or if possible make a bit to re-invest. Not a shred of profit involved. Interesting points on Rights not being made by the government, given the governments role in the Constitution, whicch Republicans claims, gives them rights. Its kind of an oxymoron situation.

TreasureKY -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 5:21:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Interesting points on Rights not being made by the government, given the governments role in the Constitution, whicch Republicans claims, gives them rights. Its kind of an oxymoron situation. It may seem oxymoronic, but from the words you've used it sounds as if that is due to you not understanding correctly. The following link is to a short video* that may help clarify... if you really wish to know. (If the link doesn't work properly, you should start watching around the 3:14 point.) Constitutional Rights *Disclaimer: I'm not really familiar with this guy. I understand he was big in the Libertarian Party, but since I'm not Libertarian and he's not been active in politics for some time, I have no idea whether he'd be considered reasonable in his ideas or off in left field somewhere. I will tell you that this video does present a very good explanation of the subject at hand as I was taught and as I believe.

JeffBC -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 5:23:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Capping awards, will bring down the cost of malpractice insurance. Reducing the cost of malpractice insurance will reduce the overhead costs for care providers, which will result in a lower cost of services and products. Lower costs of services and products will result in lower medical insurance costs, ie. lower premiums. Really? Why do I strongly suspect that in actual reality here in the US the actions your describing would result in more yachts for CEO's? I understand your supply & demand theory, I just think it's more theoretical than factual.

Politesub53 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 5:27:28 PM)
Oh I understand all right. I keep hearing that America is "The greatest democracy in the world" both in here, and in the media. Now you are telling me it isnt because some dude in a video says it isnt. "By the people, for the people, of the people" couldnt be a plainer statement if you tried.

TreasureKY -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 5:39:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Oh I understand all right. I keep hearing that America is "The greatest democracy in the world" both in here, and in the media. Now you are telling me it isnt because some dude in a video says it isnt. "By the people, for the people, of the people" couldnt be a plainer statement if you tried. sighs Right. So maybe you'll accept it from some more authoritative source. The CIA World Fact Book quote: UNITED STATES Government type: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition That's CIA as in Central Intelligence Agency and not Culinary Institute of America. [;)] Edited to add: In case you have a hard time finding the descriptions of government type within the site... Constitutional - a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions, and limits of that government. Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

Politesub53 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 5:43:41 PM)
sighs indeed. It doesnt alter the fact many of the same people insisting on the government not giving you rights, claims their rights are written down in the constitution.

TreasureKY -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 5:46:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 sighs indeed. It doesnt alter the fact many of the same people insisting on the government not giving you rights, claims their rights are written down in the constitution. They are enumerated within the Constitution... not granted by the Constitution.

dcnovice -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 8:04:05 PM)
quote: That's CIA as in Central Intelligence Agency and not Culinary Institute of America. Of course, many folks might be more inclined to trust the latter. [:)]

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 9:26:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 No it doesnt..... Insurance companies are out to make a profit from health services. The government, at least our one, is not. All the NHS hope to do is break even or if possible make a bit to re-invest. Not a shred of profit involved. Interesting points on Rights not being made by the government, given the governments role in the Constitution, whicch Republicans claims, gives them rights. Its kind of an oxymoron situation. The US Constitution is a compact among the States. That's why Amendments to the US Constitution have to be ratified by the States, else they won't go into effect (and, they won't go into effect until enough States ratify the Amendment). Government does not give us our rights. The US Constitution does not give us our rights.

bindme84 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 10:14:17 PM)
I am Canadian and I've had amazingly good fortune with my health to this point in my life. I've never needed to go to a hospital for more than a bad flu; however, my grandfather is a walking medical miracle. He had a quadruple bypass heart surgery in the late 1980's when it was a much more risky procedure than it is today, and the doctor's told him he'd be lucky to live 1-5 years after the surgery. He's still alive at age 87, despite having 4 major heart attacks and countless strokes since then. He's one tough old man. While he's had to deal with wait times, they've always been manageable because you are evaluated based on how critically you need the surgery (ie. if you're really severe and not going to make it through a long wait, the doctor's can get you moved up on the list ahead of people who aren't as severe; kind of a "triage" concept). None of those surgeries cost him a dime. What's cost him a fortune and forced him to sell his house and move into a care facility is the cost of caregiving for him and my grandmother. He's in rough physical shape, and she's declined mentally, so they both need advanced care at this stage in their lives. This is a huge issue moving forward with the baby boomers hitting their late senior years. Another example I can think of regarding the Canadian health care system at work is a guy from my hometown who was born with Cystic Fibrosis. When he was a young child, Doctors told his parents that he would never live past his teenage years. He's still alive in his early 30s, and he's survived through waiting for two separate double-lung transplants. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who could tell horror stories about their experiences in any country's health care system. I think this issue really boils down to, "do I believe every human being deserves to have access to medical treatment when they legitimately need it?" I say yes, and so did Tommy Douglas, who is hailed in Canada as a political hero on the same level that Americans praise their founding fathers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there something along these lines in the oath that doctor's take?

NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/10/2013 12:04:37 AM)
right, so unless I missed a reply, Desi has no problem with someone dying because their credit card wouldn't work when paramedics bring them into a hospital, but if anyone wants to call it quits because the private pay system has failed them, in the bouts of a disease that cripples them or disfigures them or blinds them, then they can just get fucked.

eulero83 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/10/2013 12:43:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Interesting points on Rights not being made by the government, given the governments role in the Constitution, whicch Republicans claims, gives them rights. Its kind of an oxymoron situation. It may seem oxymoronic, but from the words you've used it sounds as if that is due to you not understanding correctly. The following link is to a short video* that may help clarify... if you really wish to know. (If the link doesn't work properly, you should start watching around the 3:14 point.) Constitutional Rights *Disclaimer: I'm not really familiar with this guy. I understand he was big in the Libertarian Party, but since I'm not Libertarian and he's not been active in politics for some time, I have no idea whether he'd be considered reasonable in his ideas or off in left field somewhere. I will tell you that this video does present a very good explanation of the subject at hand as I was taught and as I believe. if you've been taught democracy is this you've been taught wrong, democracy is not that and he confuses some concepts like state, governament, people, democracy, republic for example. Indeed I agree with the title of the video, the people have rights and the governament has privileges that is pretty different from "the governament gives privileges" by the way if you want to discuss this I opened a thread on this subject.

eulero83 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/10/2013 1:20:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Capping awards, will bring down the cost of malpractice insurance. Reducing the cost of malpractice insurance will reduce the overhead costs for care providers, which will result in a lower cost of services and products. Lower costs of services and products will result in lower medical insurance costs, ie. lower premiums. Really? Why do I strongly suspect that in actual reality here in the US the actions your describing would result in more yachts for CEO's? I understand your supply & demand theory, I just think it's more theoretical than factual. Supply and demand theory says the opposite to what he says, it means the price is based on the ratio between supply (in this case the number of health care providers) and demand (in this case the number of sick persons) in order to maximize profit, costs have nothing to do with that, if I can lower costs but demand and suply won't change I'll just make more money!

tweakabelle -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/10/2013 1:22:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 It clearly states one person dies every twelve minutes from the US due to lack of health care. It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the bottom. This kind of logic, or the similarly inane argument advanced by DS makes for fun semantic games for people who take pleasure in being obtuse. The rest of us just yawn and shake our heads sadly at the stupidity involved. Basing public healthcare policy on a foundation as flimsy and tenuous as this makes for a lot of dead people over time, as the c50,000 Americans who die annually from lack of healthcare will attest. The goal of healthcare is to prevent unnecessary death and suffering, not contribute to or increase deaths and suffering. I'm not being obtuse, nor am I playing a game. People argue that health care is a right. Why is it a right? "Because lack of health care causes death and people have the right to life." [paraphrased] Um, no. Lack of health care does not cause death. Health care can only extend life by countering the effects of disease. Basing public health care policy on moral grounds is is ridiculous. You can't legislate morality. Government isn't about morality or emotional stuff. It's all about the legalities. Government is about securing the rights of the governed. Health care is a necessity, but it is not a right. Having health insurance is good, but it is not a right. Having our health care costs low is a damn good thing, but, again, it is not a right. [...] I am not playing a game. I am not relying on semantics. So the real reason for your obstinacy reveals itself - ideology. Nothing to do with healthcare per se, nothing to do with saving or prolonging lives - it all boils down to an ideological antipathy towards 'socialised medicine'. To the USA Right it doesn't matter that tens of thousands of American citizens die unnecessary deaths annually. It doesn't matter that country after country has demonstrated that universal healthcare systems are far cheaper and produce far superior health outcomes. It doesn't even matter whether lack of healthcare causes needless fatalities or not. There's an ideological objection and nothing, absolutely nothing is going to be allowed to challenge that flawed ideology. Which leaved me shaking my head sadly. The costs of the Right's ideological objection to universal healthcare is measured in the tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths that were a direct result of the ridiculous healthcare system previously operative in the USA. You and Lucy can continue to shake your heads sadly together. I don't have a problem with that. What would happen if the cost of care was reduced so that it was more affordable, without insurance? What would that do to the cost of insurance? Would "tens of thousands" of American citizens die unnecessary deaths? I firmly believe the US Constitution does not authorize the US Federal Government to provide for the health care of US Citizens. No matter what the merits of an issue are, if it's not authorized by the US Constitution, there is no authority for the Federal Government to provide it. It really is that simple. And, this is not simply limited to health care, either. There is no need to resort to ideological or constitutional arguments (though I believe that the US Govt has a (constitutional?) role to ensure the welfare of its citizens, which to my mind, is meaningless unless it includes healthcare ) People are dying in their tens of thousands every year. Every one of those deaths is avoidable and unnecessary. The easiest, cheapest and most efficient way of preventing those deaths is through a universal healthcare system. A universal healthcare system is justified on pragmatic grounds alone. Why is the US Right so determined to ensure that Americans continue to die completely unnecessary deaths in their tens of thousands every year?

crazyml -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/10/2013 1:33:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The easiest, cheapest and most efficient way of preventing those deaths is through a universal healthcare system. A universal healthcare system is justified on pragmatic grounds alone. This is, by far, the best justification for universal healthcare. As it stands, the US govt already spends as much as other western govts on healthcare... and the total spend is more than double. The system is properly fucked up. And no - healthcare outcomes aren't that different. And no - lawsuits and defensive medicine don't have much of an impact on total cost.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/10/2013 5:57:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle There is no need to resort to ideological or constitutional arguments (though I believe that the US Govt has a (constitutional?) role to ensure the welfare of its citizens, which to my mind, is meaningless unless it includes healthcare ) This is an ideological and Constitutional issue, though. Yes, the US is a Constitutional Republic. The US Constitution includes the phrase "General Welfare" as part of the full phrase, "General Welfare of the United States." It was not intended for the US to provide for he well-being of each Citizen, but to provide it for the US as a group of States. This is the ideological and Constitutional part of the argument. Another thing you are missing, is that the US Constitution is only granting limited power and authority to the Federal government. Did you watch the video TreasureKY linked to here? If not, I recommend you take the several minutes to do so. It might help explain the ideological issue. quote: People are dying in their tens of thousands every year. Every one of those deaths is avoidable and unnecessary. The easiest, cheapest and most efficient way of preventing those deaths is through a universal healthcare system. A universal healthcare system is justified on pragmatic grounds alone. Why is the US Right so determined to ensure that Americans continue to die completely unnecessary deaths in their tens of thousands every year? Yeah, say there is no need to get ideological and then pose a stupid ideological question to conclude. Brilliant (but obvious)!

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/10/2013 5:59:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The easiest, cheapest and most efficient way of preventing those deaths is through a universal healthcare system. A universal healthcare system is justified on pragmatic grounds alone. This is, by far, the best justification for universal healthcare. As it stands, the US govt already spends as much as other western govts on healthcare... and the total spend is more than double. The system is properly fucked up. And no - healthcare outcomes aren't that different. And no - lawsuits and defensive medicine don't have much of an impact on total cost. How are you going to include everyone under government's paying for care and expect the total spend to drop below what government is already spending?

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625